Not a big deal, but I seem to be seeing the use of a lot more condoms lately in European porn. Are they becoming more safety conscious, or what?

I think it's a step forward. If the actors are safer, that's a good thing. And the condoms are not really that visible anyway. You only see them in some of the shots. If you're aren't looking, you hardly realize they are being used. And they are removed at the end for the money shot, anyway.

Not a big deal, but I seem to be seeing the use of a lot more condoms lately in European porn. Are they becoming more safety conscious, or what?

I think it's a step forward. If the actors are safer, that's a good thing. And the condoms are not really that visible anyway. You only see them in some of the shots. If you're aren't looking, you hardly realize they are being used. And they are removed at the end for the money shot, anyway.

Your optimism is commendable, lk2fireone. I only wish I could agree with you.
I'd argue that most porn users, like me, see condoms as a major turn-off and don't want to see them being used at all -- despite the safty factor.
And although that may appear callous, the importantance of a performer's job is to satisfy the needs of those who pay to benefit from their services.
Until the porn business gets serious about finding a solution to this problem ie., methodology concealing and/or convincing the viewer somehow condoms aren't being used, then controversy will rage on.

I hate them too, but I wonder why they can't just digitally remove them. Shouldn't be too hard would it?

From the little bit of work I've done (not this specifically, but video editing in general), it's not easy. You'd basically have to remove it frame by frame, and it would be hard to get the lighting right.

About the only way I can see to removing the condom is if it's a green condom like they do use for CGI's. I don't know enough about the technology but what used to be blue screens are now green. I guess You could create a penis without condom after filming but that's not likely to happen since it will still require a lot of computer work and porn is not the kind of business that enjoys spending large amounts of money to make a good product.

It's no secret that I don't mind condoms so it doesn't bother me seeing them. I think it's almost unavoidable that at some point penetration will involve a condom. Although the latest case of HIV seems to involve only the male performer and no one else. It's still the second reported case in about a year. The fact that he did both hetero and gay porn also doesn't help. He's not the first guy and not the last to do that and there have ben some very famous males that have done the same. It's possible that at some point girls are going to request condoms for penetration scenes or will only work with a very small list of performers. Long live the Brown Coats.

Why should I care if any industrial workers risk their health and well being? All I care about is that the product meets my needs. And, be sure, that target is constantly moving, so workers should accept even more dangers as they have voluntarily chosen their avocation. If they don't like the risks, they can become CEO's,lawyers, doctors, or hedge fund managers.

Of course that rant is dripping in sarcasm, but that sentiment is prevalent for the arrogant consumer.

Sorry guys, but I must be a pervert. My focus in porn is PTA*, not male body parts.

A sexy broad with gorgeous body parts is, or should be IMO, the point in pornography. The stunt cock is there to create the full magilla, to provide something to fill the cavities, not to whack one's noodle over.

I really don't give a rat's butt whether the dude is wearing a rubber or not. I care only about the director making sure the dude's hairy ass is not getting in the way of my seeing all parts of the babe and how she maximizes her sexuality by her moves.

Why should I care if any industrial workers risk their health and well being? All I care about is that the product meets my needs. And, be sure, that target is constantly moving, so workers should accept even more dangers as they have voluntarily chosen their avocation. If they don't like the risks, they can become CEO's,lawyers, doctors, or hedge fund managers.

Of course that rant is dripping in sarcasm, but that sentiment is prevalent for the arrogant consumer.

Welcome to the real world, markfx. May I throw in a little sarcasm, too?
Lets also do away with the Police and Firemen, cuz we know they risk life and limb every day...certainly no guess work there.
Maybe I should sue Ungle Sam for drafting and sending me into that raging jungle war in Vietnam -- where my life-expectancy was in the single digits.
If one compares those dangers with the small chance of even a reckless porn star will contract HIV...well, it doesn't take a Mathematician to take that on.
In your stated sarcasm, I believe you left out the fact that a method exists in the porn business called "exams" ..which, if followed properly, would almost assure protection against the disease.

I believe you left out the fact that a method exists in the porn business called "exams" ..which, if followed properly, would almost assure protection against the disease.

You are correct that a proper exam will greatly help the chances of catching anyone infected with HIV as well as a couple of other STD's. Case in point is this last little scare. The performer was caught early before he had a chance of infecting anyone else. It's still believed that he came into contact with dozens of different performers by indirect routes. Imagine you are on that list waiting for the test to comeback. Not knowing whether you'll be told that your life is over as you knew it and that you'll have to spend the rest of your life taking medication to prevent you from dying but that's not a cure as much as a method of keeping the diseases in control.

Everyone always argues that these people know what they are getting into and that it's part of working in porn but many of the girls are in their late teens and early 20's and these 2 age groups never look to the future? It's the now that counts.

I don't think the police and firemen analogy works because both of those groups use protection in their job. police officer wear bullet proof vest and firemen wear fire resistant material. Long live the Brown Coats.

I don't think the police and firemen analogy works because both of those groups use protection in their job. police officer wear bullet proof vest and firemen wear fire resistant material.

I think if one could compare an accurate obituary percentages of police, fireman, and porn stars. I doubt your theory would stand up.
Firemen protection and police vests still leave vulnerable areas that's much too easy to exploit -- and are, for too many times.

I think if one could compare an accurate obituary percentages of police, fireman, and porn stars. I doubt your theory would stand up.
Firemen protection and police vests still leave vulnerable areas that's much too easy to exploit -- and are, for too many times.

I agree with you that police vest and firemen equipment leave certain areas more vulnerable but I hope you'll agree that both of them still use protection. A condom in no way guarantees that you won't catch something but it certainly helps.

It's a fact that more policemen and firemen die because of their jobs than pornstars but life is precious and losing one that could have been prevented is still a sad. Long live the Brown Coats.

I agree with you that police vest and firemen equipment leave certain areas more vulnerable but I hope you'll agree that both of them still use protection. A condom in no way guarantees that you won't catch something but it certainly helps.

You can say the same thing about their blood tests–they help but there are no guarantees. Even abstinence is dangerous if you don't know what you have in the first place.

Plus, in real life, abstinence is a big lie anyway; buy some condoms, learn to use them, and have fun.

But as far as porn goes...if they still pull them off for cumshots does that not negate some of their protection? Semen isn't exactly a poison (though that would explain some girls' aversion to blowjobs), but it's still a body fluid that carries viruses and diseases, not to mention high dry cleaning bills.

Law enforcement will continue to use body armor and still get shot and hurt, and porn stars can start using their own rubber armor but they could still get sick. There's no perfect solution to this, except maybe solo model porn and extensive rubber fetishes. "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove

Technology has come a long way, seemingly getting to the point wherein nothing almost is impossible.

With that in mind, I guess What I'm going to say will probably ilicit a blast of laughter that'll roll you out of your chair.

Here goes:....Just kick the human male porn star's ass out of the business completely, and bring on animated virtual partners for the ladies. You gotta admit they got those electronically generated forms lookin' uncannily realistic.

I'll take that any day over the sight of a condom. Edited on Oct 26, 2010, 06:26pm

I really don't give a rat's butt whether the dude is wearing a rubber or not. I care only about the director making sure the dude's hairy ass is not getting in the way of my seeing all parts of the babe and how she maximizes her sexuality by her moves.

Colm4 rote:
I hate them too, but I wonder why they can't just digitally remove them. Shouldn't be too hard would it?

From a still image? Easy. I could do it in 30 seconds.
From a video? Not easy. A 20 minute vid is composed of thousands upon thousands of separate images. To use a blue or green dick effect would add CGI post production costs that I don't think anyone at PU would be willing to underwrite. unless life also gives you water and sugar, your lemonade is gonna suck.

I'm so glad somebody pulled this thread out of the past and is, for the right reasons, introducing it again.

Back when this thread was posted (Oct, 2010) HIV and other STDs, was way more of an issue , and , more importantly, heavier on the minds of most and the diseases were perhaps more widespread.

I summit that the fear factor those opposed to the absence of condoms, and are seen (herewith) in their posts back then, can now sit down for a meal of crow ......
because if we look at the stats, the mild threat these diseases presented then to porn stars, as were overblown by those herein this thread concerning their welfare,
we then see their presentations (as it has to do with the spread of HIV among porn stars) rather groundless.
That point is pr oven because of weak numbers of cases since then that effect the porn industry.

The point remains ...... do we want visible condoms being worn in scenes (because of the spread of SIDS and HIV)
or simply allowing scenes to be shot either with or without the wearing of condoms? -being the performers choice, and those paying to see the scenes.

Sorry guys, but I must be a pervert. My focus in porn is PTA*, not male body parts.

A sexy broad with gorgeous body parts is, or should be IMO, the point in pornography. The stunt cock is there to create the full magilla, to provide something to fill the cavities, not to whack one's noodle over.

I really don't give a rat's butt whether the dude is wearing a rubber or not. I care only about the director making sure the dude's hairy ass is not getting in the way of my seeing all parts of the babe and how she maximizes her sexuality by her moves.

*PTA = Pussy, Tits and Ass.

I have to say this is my exact opinion, a condom actually makes the guys part more absent from the scene for me it works may not for everyone. I think condoms would suck if I was into gay porn. that would be like watching a girl having sex with a hole in her pants and I could not see the good stuff. I wonder how condoms affect gay porn ? Since 2007 wow what a ride it was , be well !

I think condoms would suck if I was into gay porn. that would be like watching a girl having sex with a hole in her pants and I could not see the good stuff. I wonder how condoms affect gay porn ?

I don't watch gay porn but the comments I normally see whenever the question of condoms in porn comes up is that condoms have been the norm for many years now in gay porn. It's been the norm in anything Wicked does and most of the Vivid stuff as well and I don't think any of those companies are complaining about a drop in their sales. At least a drop related to condoms. Long live the Brown Coats.

I don't watch gay porn but the comments I normally see whenever the question of condoms in porn comes up is that condoms have been the norm for many years now in gay porn. It's been the norm in anything Wicked does and most of the Vivid stuff as well and I don't think any of those companies are complaining about a drop in their sales. At least a drop related to condoms.

Thanks Pat I was not aware of that, appreciate the informationSince 2007 wow what a ride it was , be well !

Perhaps I haven't made myself clear ...(which is a valid assumption based on history of my past forum entries).
So please see me out while I try to put this in a perspective that might shed some light.......
While I can appreciate the concerns of those sounding off about the risks and consequences of sex w/o condoms -- as it has to do with the porn industry, and maybe even hold my tongue while the law is flirting with getting into the act ..... The short answer whether to, or whether not as it's argued here isn't worth a rat's pa-tootie.....
I simply don't want to identify a condom being used in a scene I'm paying to see. It's a major turnoff and erotic killer.
The solution is so simple it bites you in the ass ....
HIDE THE DAMED THINGS!
We put men on the moon; we create special effects in movies that boggles the mind; Our market places are awash with technical gadgetry that's almost human ...
so how about getting up off your collective fat, lazy asses, production studios, innovators, or whomever else
cranks out this stuff, and do something about this pain in the ass.
BTW, read and acknowledge your mail from us for a change, and, like, you know, shock us and take some action on our pleds?Edited on Feb 17, 2013, 03:36pm

^The porn industry is dying a slow death and they really should stop talking about condoms and start concentrating on doing things that can help them survive as a business. I understand that there are people that are virulently against condoms and that they can't or won't change their mind but talking about it won't change anything. If these people choose to stop buying porn because it has condoms than that's that. I would think that shutting Tube Sites and Torrent Sites would be far more important than whether a guy is wearing a rubber during a penetration scene.

Now in regards to your question as to why they can't hide the damn things. Well there are two reasons. The first is that there is no way to hide a condom. The best anyone can do is use a clear one so that skin color shows through but the condom is still more or less visible and even more so for anyone who doesn't want to see one. The advantage with a clear condom is that it's both easy and cheap.

The other reason is that there really is no new technology out there to deal with the removal of any object from a digital media. The only current way is by the use of a computer technician painstaklingly removing the condom from every shot. That is done after the fact and requires many hours so that adds days and weeks to the release of the scene. It also adds a huge cost to the scene and that is where it makes this an impossibility for porn studios. They are already making a tiny fraction of profits and they can't afford to pay a tech guy to remove a condom because they will then make no profit.

Now even if they could get a CGI guy to do it for a very low cost then it probably still wouldn't happen because the only way for this to work require's that the performer wear a blue or preferably lime green condom. This would make it impossible to sell the scene as is because no one will want to watch a guy screw a girl with a lime green condom on his penis. The only exception I can think of is if it's a spoof of Schrek. Long live the Brown Coats.

Its very plain to see, Pat, that you've done your homework quite well. And you've presented your case admirably.
And I personally believe a bigger percentage of people who read your commentary here pretty much accept it as gospel.
I suspect, and I know we here at PU would conclude, that you reference most of what you release on this forum from the good sources.
And for those reasons, as well as other commendable evidence of your sage contribution to this forum, I'm going to buy what you've had to say on this subject.

except ....

I absolutely refuse to believe, given the effort on the part of those making and the distributing of porn, that a line can't be drawn to satisfy both parties of this issue.

I'll give you an example of one practice Porn purveyors could adopt that would be a very effective start ...
STOP ... I said STOP ... saturating fuck scenes with so much closeups. The outrageous, absurd, nonsensical, extravagant time cameramen burn up with endless shots of this guy's balls and hairy ass atop a form whose only body part is the mound of a vagina ... simply blows the mind.

The scenes are perpetually starved for more angle shots, of which are so fleeting, because the dumb-ass behind the camera must hurriedly get back parking his lens on the same old balls-an'-ass closeup.
Doesn't it make sense that the fewer the closeups the less chance the penis would display a condom? And its not rocket science that with a tad of ingenuity, angling the lens can be done in such a way as to minimize the possible sight of a condom.
For some asinine reason, these jerks shooting the scenes must think everybody viewing simply can't get close enough and served with visual preponderance of the sight of a pussy connected to a penis.

That's just one thing .....time and space are too short to include more at this time.
But believe it! there's a way. Like I said earlier .... they got to get off their lazy asses and think for a change.

...STOP ... I said STOP ... saturating fuck scenes with so much closeups. The outrageous, absurd, nonsensical, extravagant time cameramen burn up with endless shots of this guy's balls and hairy ass atop a form whose only body part is the mound of a vagina ... simply blows the mind.

The scenes are perpetually starved for more angle shots, of which are so fleeting, because the dumb-ass behind the camera must hurriedly get back parking his lens on the same old balls-an'-ass closeup...

NAILED IT!!!

The rubber issue has become a big thing because of the amount of time the schlong appears as the primary object in a scene.

It's intuitive. Read the earlier posts that discuss condoms in gay porn and you get the message. Edited on Feb 18, 2013, 09:09pm

I completely agree with you that so many scenes today are basically a camera zooming on a guys dick going back and forth in one of the girls holes or as is often the case all three holes. hell if women were to somehow get an extra opening than most of these guys would want to stick a dick in it.

Condoms would probably be less of an issue for many people if we got shots that were from different angles where the condom is not all that visible. How about some facial shots, some nice side shots. A camera isn't meant to be static. It's mean to move and show all of the action rather than just genetalia. Long live the Brown Coats.

Protecting MinorsWe are strong supporters of RTA and ICRA, two of the most recognized self labeling organizations. Our site is properly labeled to assist in the protection of minors accessing inappopriate content. For information about filtering tools, check this site.

DISCLAIMER: ALL MODELS APPEARING ON THIS WEBSITE ARE 18 YEARS OR OLDER.

To report child pornography, go directly to ASACP! We're proud to be a corporate sponsor.
Have concerns or questions about porn addiction? We recommend this helpful resource.